Kant

[Veritas Aequitas]

This idiot thinks that 'thing-in-itself' means 'the idea in your head'.

You will keep talking nonsense with reference to Kant unless and until you take the trouble to read and understand [not necessary agree] Kant's work thoroughly. I would prefer you quote from Kant's work appropriately.

Nevertheless, I find your ignorance of Kant's works very useful since that give me the opportunity to dig into and to refresh my reading of Kant's works.

[Atla]

This idiot thinks that 'thing-in-itself' means 'the idea in your head'.

You will keep talking nonsense with reference to Kant unless and until you take the trouble to read and understand [not necessary agree] Kant's work thoroughly. I would prefer you quote from Kant's work appropriately.

Nevertheless, I find your ignorance of Kant's works very useful since that give me the opportunity to dig into and to refresh my reading of Kant's works.

If you are correct, and Kant's philosophy really implies that the North Star we see in the sky is certainly a natural empirical illusion (instead of a somewhat illusory appearance of an actual thing-in-itself star out there, probably), then I'll gladly remain ignorant about him.

[seeds]

Finally, we now have a clear demonstration of how you manage to twist Kant’s words to fit your agenda.

Note how you completely changed the meaning of Kant’s assertion by insisting that we can “only think” of the Objects [of experience] as being “Things-in-Themselves,” thus making them appear to be unreal or imaginary.

Whereas, on the other hand, Kant is proposing that even though we cannot directly know the Objects [of experience] as being “Things-in-Themselves,” we nevertheless “must” think of them as being “Things-in-Themselves.”

In which case, Kant is clearly imbuing the “Things-in-Themselves (i.e., the noumena) with an implicit substance and realness (albeit inaccessible to our senses).

Nah! you are the one who is twisting Kant's words. Kant stated,

• that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
  otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears.

Kant did not state 'MUST THINK' as you has twisted it,
Kant stated "we must yet be in position" the "must" is related to the position not the "thinking".
While for 'think' he qualified think as,
"at least to think"
thus at the least and the best one can only 'think' and not to objectify the things-in-themselves as real given objects.

Sorry, Veritas, but you are completely wrong about that.

You are putting the emphasis on the wrong thing.

Let’s break it down:

...that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves,...

Meaning: that even though we cannot know the noumenal aspect of the objects – (as they really are) - independent of our sensory experience of them...

...we must yet be in position...

Meaning: we must be willing...

...at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves...

Meaning: to reason them (presume them) as possessing some form of independent existence unto themselves in their noumenal context...

...Otherwise, why in the world do you think he added this last line...

...otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears.

...???

Stop ignoring the implications of that last line.

Furthermore, to look deeper into the Wiki quote that Atla referenced earlier:

Many accounts of Kant's philosophy treat "noumenon" and "thing-in-itself" as synonymous, and there is textual evidence for this relationship...
...Kant's writings show points of difference between noumena and things-in-themselves. For instance, he regards things-in-themselves as existing:

• ...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears.

Now just in case you glossed over it, here it is again:

...he regards things-in-themselves as existing...

Therefore, it would appear that Wikipedia does not agree with you, Veritas.

In which case, shouldn’t you contact the editors and...

(after shamelessly bragging to them about how your 3 whole years of personal studies have made you the world’s leading expert on Kant)

...correct their error?

Again, Veritas, I am sorry, but there’s just no getting around the fact that if everyone (and their grandmother) is countering and debunking the very first line (the anchoring premise) of one of your key syllogisms...

Point is, for Kant,

• 1. The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real
  2. God is the thing-in-itself
  3. Therefore God is impossible to be real

...then your whole theory regarding the “impossibility of God being real” falls apart.

Now with all of the preceding in mind, we both need to be willing to admit that all of us (including Kant) could be completely wrong about this extremely confusing “thing-in-itself” business.

And that furthermore, after all is said and done,...

...the bottom line is that the possession of the esoteric knowledge we are arguing about in this thread - in combination with $1.50 in U.S. currency - will bestow upon each of us the prestigious honor and privilege of being able to take a ride on the city bus.
_______

[Eodnhoj7]

That is because you end up having to meld mysticism and reason together and we are left with Eastern philosophy (daoism, buddhism, hinduism) where "void" is an actual premise.

This is just your interpretation. The fact is I have worked my way up to this position entirely from what you might call "western" philosophy. But even that would be a lie. I have worked my way up to this position from the metaphysic colloquially referred to as "science".

I was an applied scientist long before I read any philosophy.

I recognize the parallels to Eastern philosophy, but on the road travelled I was never influenced by Eastern philosophy. I merely arrived at the same conclusions.

Dao. Truth. Enlightenment. God. Non-dualism. Monism. It's all the same idea.

Western philosophy, in its continual pursuit of "reason", has failed to acknowledge that its grounding are empty assumptions.

Well, you fail to observe the origin of language. The thing that generates language. The thing that generates those things you call "assumptions".

Is the "self" empty? Only if you have low self-esteem.

And what is the origin of language without ending in a loop as to what language is? Or the "I" without ending in a loop? Can you give any definition to origin without requiring a focal point of observation or an inherent loop?

All assumptions are fundamentally empty, even the word "assumption" is assumed. What is self-esteem? Self Praise? Over what? Self Denigration? Over What? The self is fundamentally "assumed" as the beginning point of any assumptive act. It is undefined and dynamic.

[Eodnhoj7]

That is because you end up having to meld mysticism and reason together and we are left with Eastern philosophy (daoism, buddhism, hinduism) where "void" is an actual premise.

This is just your interpretation. The fact is I have worked my way up to this position entirely from what you might call "western" philosophy. But even that would be a lie. I have worked my way up to this position from the metaphysic colloquially referred to as "science".

I was an applied scientist long before I read any philosophy.

I recognize the parallels to Eastern philosophy, but on the road travelled I was never influenced by Eastern philosophy. I merely arrived at the same conclusions.

Dao. Truth. Enlightenment. God. Non-dualism. Monism. It's all the same idea.

Western philosophy, in its continual pursuit of "reason", has failed to acknowledge that its grounding are empty assumptions.

Well, you fail to observe the origin of language. The thing that generates language. The thing that generates those things you call "assumptions".

Is the "self" empty? Only if you have low self-esteem.

And what is the origin of language without ending in a loop as to what language is? Or the "I" without ending in a loop? Can you give any definition to origin without requiring a focal point of observation or an inherent loop?

All assumptions are fundamentally empty, even the word "assumption" is assumed. What is self-esteem? Self Praise? Over what? Self Denigration? Over What? The self is fundamentally "assumed" as the beginning point of any assumptive act. It is undefined and dynamic.

You premise on "origin" really is grounded in assumption. Language itself is the assumption of symbols with these symbols in turn being projected and reassumed.

[Atla]

Therefore, it would appear that Wikipedia does not agree with you, Veritas.

In which case, shouldn’t you contact the editors and...

(after shamelessly bragging to them about how your 3 whole years of personal studies have made you the world’s leading expert on Kant)

...correct their error?

Tactfully pointing out their existential crises, that led to this error, would also be a helpful idea.

[Sculptor]

Kant was inspired by Hume, who among the Empiricists most conclusively drew attention to the facts that we have a range of senses that give evidence of things that exist in the real world, but were necessarily not able to give a complete picture.

In the period since Darwin it is painfully obvious that nature has, by luck and flaw managed to provide living things with the means to understand through sensation the world about them. Different living things, having different senses see the world differently. How unlikely would it be for nature to have managed to conjure up a perfect means to exactly show us what the world is like? This is a simple enough way to understand what Kant was getting at.

Kant, inspired by Hume, formalised a way of thinking about the world, by dividing the observed and observable elements of the world as phenomena, and left us in no doubt that our senses cannot possibly see, smell, taste, feel, EXACTLY what is really there. The unobservable is the noumenal world of the things-in-themselves.

Kant was not making reference to anything "inside" your head, he is specifically interested to demonstrate the limits of sensation in regard to the external world in the context of late 18thC empiricism.

[Impenitent]

the senses receive impressions

the sensory impressions are the only things to which the mind has access

the "thing in itself" remains aloof

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

Finally, we now have a clear demonstration of how you manage to twist Kant’s words to fit your agenda.

Note how you completely changed the meaning of Kant’s assertion by insisting that we can “only think” of the Objects [of experience] as being “Things-in-Themselves,” thus making them appear to be unreal or imaginary.

Whereas, on the other hand, Kant is proposing that even though we cannot directly know the Objects [of experience] as being “Things-in-Themselves,” we nevertheless “must” think of them as being “Things-in-Themselves.”

In which case, Kant is clearly imbuing the “Things-in-Themselves (i.e., the noumena) with an implicit substance and realness (albeit inaccessible to our senses).

Nah! you are the one who is twisting Kant's words. Kant stated,

• that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
  otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears.

Kant did not state 'MUST THINK' as you has twisted it,
Kant stated "we must yet be in position" the "must" is related to the position not the "thinking".
While for 'think' he qualified think as,
"at least to think"
thus at the least and the best one can only 'think' and not to objectify the things-in-themselves as real given objects.

Sorry, Veritas, but you are completely wrong about that.

You are putting the emphasis on the wrong thing.

Let’s break it down:

...that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves,...

Meaning: that even though we cannot know the noumenal aspect of the objects – (as they really are) - independent of our sensory experience of them...

...we must yet be in position...

Meaning: we must be willing...

...at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves...

Meaning: to reason them (presume them) as possessing some form of independent existence unto themselves in their noumenal context...

...Otherwise, why in the world do you think he added this last line...

...otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears.

...???

Stop ignoring the implications of that last line.

Furthermore, to look deeper into the Wiki quote that Atla referenced earlier:

Many accounts of Kant's philosophy treat "noumenon" and "thing-in-itself" as synonymous, and there is textual evidence for this relationship...
...Kant's writings show points of difference between noumena and things-in-themselves. For instance, he regards things-in-themselves as existing:

• ...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears.

Now just in case you glossed over it, here it is again:

...he regards things-in-themselves as existing...

Therefore, it would appear that Wikipedia does not agree with you, Veritas.

In which case, shouldn’t you contact the editors and...

(after shamelessly bragging to them about how your 3 whole years of personal studies have made you the world’s leading expert on Kant)

...correct their error?

Again, Veritas, I am sorry, but there’s just no getting around the fact that if everyone (and their grandmother) is countering and debunking the very first line (the anchoring premise) of one of your key syllogisms...

Point is, for Kant,

• 1. The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real
  2. God is the thing-in-itself
  3. Therefore God is impossible to be real

...then your whole theory regarding the “impossibility of God being real” falls apart.

Now with all of the preceding in mind, we both need to be willing to admit that all of us (including Kant) could be completely wrong about this extremely confusing “thing-in-itself” business.

And that furthermore, after all is said and done,...

...the bottom line is that the possession of the esoteric knowledge we are arguing about in this thread - in combination with $1.50 in U.S. currency - will bestow upon each of us the prestigious honor and privilege of being able to take a ride on the city bus.
_______

As I had stated you are interpreting each statement above too literally and not taking them in the context of the whole of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Especially re Kant, your approach above shown you lack intellectual integrity and is insulting your own intelligence.


I have also mentioned the " ..appearance without anything that appears" is only a summarized point in the preface [do understand the purpose and limitation of a preface?]. You need to understand it in the full context of the section of sensibility of the CPR where the main divisions are 1. Sensibility, 2. Reason.

You should at least read the whole article on noumenon in Wiki which at its best still fall short of reading the whole of the CPR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
You should read at least,
3.3 Positive and negative noumena
3.4 The noumenon as a limiting concept
to understand the noumenon in its full perspective.
Especially for Kantian philosophy, one cannot rely totally on wiki [generally one should not] but one must refer to the Critique of Reason itself.

Note Kant again

• The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
  
  At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
  B311

As I had argued earlier, the concept of noumenon is a limiting concept and thus has a limiting function of negative employment. It's purpose is to put a limit to the field of sensibility, i.e. to curb the pretensions of sensibility, especially to equivocate sensibility [empirical] with the transcendental entities [God, and the likes].

As I had stated the CPR deals with knowledge and its objects in 2 main divisions, i.e.

• 1. Sensibility,
  2. Reason.

The purpose of the noumenon is a limiting concept, i.e. it is like a boundary to ensure whatever of sensibility [empirical] do not extent beyond sensibility to reason.

Example of reason going beyond the limit of sensibility is;

• 1. Things exist [sensibility - empirical - noumenon ]
  2. God create things [reason - thing-in-itself + sensibility]
  3. God exists. [reason]

P2 is false because the noumenon in P2 is a limiting concept that limits sensible objects and thus cannot be extended beyond sensibility to the transcendental as thing-in-itself in P2.
Thus the fallacy of equivocation.

God in this case is an impossibility to be real because God has no real grounds.
The noumenon a limit of empirical reality curbed the pretension of God as real. The idea and the reification of God is an illusion.
Kant went on to explain how the theists mind is duped into thinking the illusory God is real by theists. Note,

• They [things-in-themselves*] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
  B397

*the father of the things-in-themselves is God

[Veritas Aequitas]

This idiot thinks that 'thing-in-itself' means 'the idea in your head'.

You will keep talking nonsense with reference to Kant unless and until you take the trouble to read and understand [not necessary agree] Kant's work thoroughly. I would prefer you quote from Kant's work appropriately.

Nevertheless, I find your ignorance of Kant's works very useful since that give me the opportunity to dig into and to refresh my reading of Kant's works.

If you are correct, and Kant's philosophy really implies that the North Star we see in the sky is certainly a natural empirical illusion (instead of a somewhat illusory appearance of an actual thing-in-itself star out there, probably), then I'll gladly remain ignorant about him.

Can you be sure there is an actual star-in-itself or it is merely a stream of waves triggering your retina?
The star we see in the dark sky could be waves that had traveled 100 billion light years from the supposedly real star. The star you are seeing is a 100 billion light years old historical star. Thus there is a time gap of 100 billion light years between what you see as real and the actual real star [if there is one].
The said star you seeing now is likely to have imploded in real time [2019] and is non-existent may be 50 billion years ago.
As such there is no real star-in-itself in relation to the star you see in the dark night.
We can only assume there is a real star and this is one of the purpose of the noumenon, i.e. the noumena-star.

The star example is very clear in distinguishing appearance from reality [substance] with a 100 billion light years gap between appearance and that-which-appear.

But the same principle is applicable to everyday objects where there is still a time-gap. In the case of ordinary everyday objects, the time gap is in terms of nano-seconds, seconds, minutes.
The Sun you see everyday is always 9 minutes old historical Sun.
So is there a real Sun-in-itself?
Logically we can never know the real Sun-in-itself, we can only assume there is a Sun-in-itself, i.e. the noumenal Sun.

It is the same with a table in front of you.
There is a time gap for the waves of the table to travel to your eyes before it is perceived as a thing, i.e. a table.
Even if you touch the physical table, there is still a time-gap [nano-seconds] between your fingers, nerves to your brain and the actual perception.
As such you did not know the noumena table, you can only assume [think] it must be there.
This is why Bertrand Russell doubted,

• Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
  Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.

If you want to remain ignorant about Kant, you are actually running away from reality and living ignorantly.

Re 'in your head'?
Kant is an empirical realist, thus he believe in external objects as real. see below;

• The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist or, as he is called, a dualist;
  From the start, we [incl. Kant] have declared ourselves in favour of this Transcendental Idealism;
  A370

[Veritas Aequitas]

Below are the necessary principles supporting the theory of the thing-in-itself

• Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.[1]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
  
  In philosophy, essence is the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence
  
  In metaphysics, [philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Kant's is a philosophical anti-realist thus do not agree with the above principles in real terms. This is where Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution to counter the above.

To be more precise in his counter of the above, Kant differentiated things into the following main divisions;

• 1. Empirical things - via sensibility
  2. Non-empirical things - via reason

Whilst all things comprised the same substance and essence as defined above, Kant assigned the following differentiation;

• 1. Empirical things - via sensibility - Noumenon
  2. Non-empirical things - via reason- Thing-in-itself

Thus there is no difference between the noumenon and thing-in-itself if both are dealt as 'substance' and 'essence'.

It is essential the above it understood and taken into consideration when reading the CPR.

[Atla]

Can you be sure there is an actual star-in-itself or it is merely a stream of waves triggering your retina?
The star we see in the dark sky could be waves that had traveled 100 billion light years from the supposedly real star. The star you are seeing is a 100 billion light years old historical star. Thus there is a time gap of 100 billion light years between what you see as real and the actual real star [if there is one].
The said star you seeing now is likely to have imploded in real time [2019] and is non-existent may be 50 billion years ago.
As such there is no real star-in-itself in relation to the star you see in the dark night.
We can only assume there is a real star and this is one of the purpose of the noumenon, i.e. the noumena-star.

The star example is very clear in distinguishing appearance from reality [substance] with a 100 billion light years gap between appearance and that-which-appear.

But the same principle is applicable to everyday objects where there is still a time-gap. In the case of ordinary everyday objects, the time gap is in terms of nano-seconds, seconds, minutes.
The Sun you see everyday is always 9 minutes old historical Sun.
So is there a real Sun-in-itself?
Logically we can never know the real Sun-in-itself, we can only assume there is a Sun-in-itself, i.e. the noumenal Sun.

It is the same with a table in front of you.
There is a time gap for the waves of the table to travel to your eyes before it is perceived as a thing, i.e. a table.
Even if you touch the physical table, there is still a time-gap [nano-seconds] between your fingers, nerves to your brain and the actual perception.
As such you did not know the noumena table, you can only assume [think] it must be there.
This is why Bertrand Russell doubted,

• Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
  Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.

If you want to remain ignorant about Kant, you are actually running away from reality and living ignorantly.

Re 'in your head'?
Kant is an empirical realist, thus he believe in external objects as real. see below;

• The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist or, as he is called, a dualist;
  From the start, we [incl. Kant] have declared ourselves in favour of this Transcendental Idealism;
  A370

Everyone knows that that we probably always see the appearance of the past, within this empirical context. And what tiggered the appearance of the star, may be long gone now.

So? That doesn't make this empirical past thing-in-itself certainly impossible to be real. You have just explained how it could be real. You are making contradictory statements (impossible to be real). And I'm saying this as someone who of course rejects substance theory and essence as ancient nonsense.

And here of course we are talking about Einsteinian spacetime, not the a priori 'absolute' space and time cognitive functions, which are ways how the human experience is constructed. I assume you understand the difference?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can you be sure there is an actual star-in-itself or it is merely a stream of waves triggering your retina?
The star we see in the dark sky could be waves that had traveled 100 billion light years from the supposedly real star. The star you are seeing is a 100 billion light years old historical star. Thus there is a time gap of 100 billion light years between what you see as real and the actual real star [if there is one].
The said star you seeing now is likely to have imploded in real time [2019] and is non-existent may be 50 billion years ago.
As such there is no real star-in-itself in relation to the star you see in the dark night.
We can only assume there is a real star and this is one of the purpose of the noumenon, i.e. the noumena-star.

The star example is very clear in distinguishing appearance from reality [substance] with a 100 billion light years gap between appearance and that-which-appear.

But the same principle is applicable to everyday objects where there is still a time-gap. In the case of ordinary everyday objects, the time gap is in terms of nano-seconds, seconds, minutes.
The Sun you see everyday is always 9 minutes old historical Sun.
So is there a real Sun-in-itself?
Logically we can never know the real Sun-in-itself, we can only assume there is a Sun-in-itself, i.e. the noumenal Sun.

It is the same with a table in front of you.
There is a time gap for the waves of the table to travel to your eyes before it is perceived as a thing, i.e. a table.
Even if you touch the physical table, there is still a time-gap [nano-seconds] between your fingers, nerves to your brain and the actual perception.
As such you did not know the noumena table, you can only assume [think] it must be there.
This is why Bertrand Russell doubted,

• Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
  Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.

If you want to remain ignorant about Kant, you are actually running away from reality and living ignorantly.

Re 'in your head'?
Kant is an empirical realist, thus he believe in external objects as real. see below;

• The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist or, as he is called, a dualist;
  From the start, we [incl. Kant] have declared ourselves in favour of this Transcendental Idealism;
  A370

Everyone knows that that we probably always see the appearance of the past, within this empirical context. And what tiggered the appearance of the star, may be long gone now.

So? That doesn't make this empirical past thing-in-itself certainly impossible to be real. You have just explained how it could be real. You are making contradictory statements (impossible to be real). And I'm saying this as someone who of course rejects substance theory and essence as ancient nonsense.

And here of course we are talking about Einsteinian spacetime, not the a priori 'absolute' space and time cognitive functions, which are ways how the human experience is constructed. I assume you understand the difference?

I did not claim that empirical thing [star] is impossible to be real.
If you have lived in that star's solar system before it imploded, then that star is relative real to you in that circumstances.

However that star would not be really-real to you because it is at best an estimated a 9 minute old historical Sun.
The really-real star [star-in-itself] is impossible to be really-real to you.
There is no real star-in-itself in the substance and essence sense.

The best you can do is to think and assume there is a real noumena star-in-itself.
How can it be really-real when it is grounded on an assumption?
Therefore a really-real star-in-itself independent of the human conditions is an impossibility to be real.

What is the real star, is that star that in interdependent with the human conditions. That star in not in our head but its the resultant of an emergence, i.e. given.

Note my quote above where "substance" refer to the thing-in-itself.
If you reject substance and essence theory as nonsense then you have to reject the thing-in-itself as nonsense.
You'll have to resolve your own contradiction.

[Skepdick]

And what is the origin of language without ending in a loop as to what language is? Or the "I" without ending in a loop? Can you give any definition to origin without requiring a focal point of observation or an inherent loop?

That which assumes. That which we label as the "I".

All assumptions are fundamentally empty, even the word "assumption" is assumed.

That which assumes is not.

What is self-esteem? Self Praise? Over what? Self Denigration? Over What? The self is fundamentally "assumed" as the beginning point of any assumptive act. It is undefined and dynamic.

If you keep asking ontological "What is X?" questions. You will keep getting empty answers.

The symbol-grounding problem is well understood.

[Atla]

I did not claim that empirical thing [star] is impossible to be real.
If you have lived in that star's solar system before it imploded, then that star is relative real to you in that circumstances.

However that star would not be really-real to you because it is at best an estimated a 9 minute old historical Sun.
The really-real star [star-in-itself] is impossible to be really-real to you.
There is no real star-in-itself in the substance and essence sense.

The best you can do is to think and assume there is a real noumena star-in-itself.
How can it be really-real when it is grounded on an assumption?
Therefore a really-real star-in-itself independent of the human conditions is an impossibility to be real.

What is the real star, is that star that in interdependent with the human conditions. That star in not in our head but its the resultant of an emergence, i.e. given.

If all this time you've been using 'real' in such a non-standard sense, then why didn't you let us know? And I already said that obviously no one here is arguing for naive realism or something similar.
The standard meaning of real is: 'exists objectively'. Not 'really-real to you'.

Note my quote above where "substance" refer to the thing-in-itself.
If you reject substance and essence theory as nonsense then you have to reject the thing-in-itself as nonsense.
You'll have to resolve your own contradiction.

What quote? I've never heard that Kant's thing-in-itself is necessarily supposed to have inherent substance/essence.